there's no reason for belief here...this is studied ground.

okay, i'll jump your hurdles.

please show one study that shows that maximal strength is not influenced by lifting or that maximal strength does not influence sprint power at the end of a race.

you have a point for track sprinting. not coincidentally, track sprinters are hugely muscled.

road racing is far too long for that to matter.

i understand that road racing is not track racing. i also understand that road racing is not a time trial. by far the majority of weight lifting studies look at ftp or ftp-like measurements (cycling efficiency ay 70% of aerobic capacity, etc.). if there is one looking at sprint power at the end of an hour at 80% of ftp, then i would be interested.

In my experience any training time off the bike in season is best spent on keeping your core strong and staying loose with stuff like yoga.

the top track sprinters are no doubt bigger than the top world tour road sprinters, but even after a lengthy stage, the sprinter on a well oiled team is delivered to the hammering point pretty fresh.

there was a study in 2010 or 2011. I don't have the time to dig for it now, but it was discussed on the forums then. It was pretty interesting.

is this it?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19903319

how cliche - another weightlifting thread with links to pubmed abstracts. lol.

I can't tell by the abstract. The threads, at the time, weren't discussing the abstract as the study itself was kicking around and as I recall being discussed in publications.

I'm pretty sure that study looked at what you mention being of interest above, but I can't say with certainty anymore. I can say by what I've read, experienced, been told by coaches and better riders, that if weightlifting has a place it's at some other point in the season for me than now.

As for the OP it depends on his goals.

A bag holds 10 pounds of beans. At some point (10 pounds) the beans spill out. Now one could theoretically mix less beans and something else, say corn, in to the bag and end up with a greater number of items. It's true. But it neglects to account for the fact that the one who owns the bag is a bean farmer and doesn't have a market for corn, never mind a corn/bean mix.

If one has X hours, let's say 8, a week to train they're far better off, if they want to improve at a given endeavor, to focus on that particular endeavor. If they have six hour they can ride, but feel they could do more physical activity, but can't ride due to work/family/whatever BUT they could get two gym hours a week....they MAY be better off getting the extra activity. BUT they also may be better off going harder during the six. Most importantly if one is scratching the edge of the time range where they're doing the maximal amount of quality cycling their body can handle they are going to diminish they're ability to recover and make use of that quality cycling if they add in more cross training of any kind.

As to weight lifting at the end of a road race it's a tough thing to explain as I'm an ex bodybuilder (80s). So I've done lots of weight training. But my ability to sprint predates that as I raced BMX through my childhood. I'm a fast twitch muscle guy. Chris Hoy can do all the weight lifting he wants but he's not beating Mark Cavendish in a road race (or a points race). On the track Cavendish would get sucked into and tumble around in the vortex created by Hoy's passing.

I return to my first post in this thread:

It is, of course, assumed we're in season. So if this was fall the conversation might be nuanced a different way.

If the question is how do I improve as a cyclist as quickly as possible: there's one answer.
If the question is how do I improve my overall health and fitness: there's another.
If the question is I like to ride but want to look good on the beach there may be yet another.
The question is ill defined thus the myriad answers and meandering conversation in the thread.

I can tell you this though...Mark Cavendish isn't lifting weights on his lead in to the tour. And Chris Hoy spends a ton of gym time year round. Now look at Wiggins before the Olympics (assuming he gets a pursuit berth) and see how much weight lifting he did between the tour and the olympics. That covers a bunch of the disciplines discussed here, in one of the most scientifically oriented cycling programs on the planet.

Things have their time and place. One needs to know when that is.

This is way too complicated. Better just ride and HTFU.

It's not even a matter of time limitations.

After a low level of performance, the x-over from other sports to cycling is very small. At moderate levels and above, it's pretty near negligible. Running perhaps has the best xover based upon most triathlete experience but even there, once you're a moderately decent cyclist (not even road racing level), the x-over drops off steeply, and once you're better than that, there's pretty much near no x-over.

You can weightlift all you want, and even if you have enough time to train as hard as you can on the bike, your performance will be pretty much 100% dictated by your cycling training.

If you want to become a faster and stronger cyclist, you gotta bike. All the other stuff is other stuff. Strength training is good for quality of life issues, run training is good for running, but don't fool yourself - you wanna get better on the bike, gotta bike.

You can cite all the pubmed articles you want or make as many false rationalizations as you want - there's a reason why good riders spend so much time in the saddle and so little time on anything else (particularly weightlifting.)

Core strength is also a friggin' joke for cycling (it's great for other things.) You do NOT need core strenght on the bike. What a bunch of bull this one is - if core strength training comes out of your mouth in making yourself a better cyclist, you have no clue what it takes to get better on the bike and your results will show it. Even that dreaded back pain from long rides has zero to do with core strength (you aren't stiffening any muscles for that position and certainly aren't using strength to maintain it) and everything to do with just acclimating to that position for long periods of time.

i appreciate your clarification on these aspects, and i think that we are pretty much on the same page. to further elaborate on my point: cycling is a dynamic sport that taxes the body in different ways (and taxes cyclists in different ways depending on their strengths, weaknesses and racing goals). i am not sure if it is for dramatic effect or for simplicity, but several posters here are simply dismissing weight lifting as being beneficial for any cyclist in any situation and saying that it is proven. the literature isn't so cut and dry if we broaden our horizons to measurements outside of ftp.

as to the pros, i think there may be a bit of futility trying to compare a pro training regiment to our own. cavendish may not do strength training in the offseason, but the previous world champ reportedly does. does that mean you, i, or tom boonen should incorporate lifting or not? coaching and training is pragmatic and depends on the individual nearly as much as it depends on the discipline. we are not uniform responders, and the best coaches can evaluate and adapt athlete's training to achieve maximum performance regardless of the dogma. for some cyclists (perhaps even the vast majority) i think that may mean 99% or more of the time on the bike, but i also believe that strength training can be beneficial to others particularly during the offseason.

i am honestly not trying to be offensive, but you are now saying that pubmed articles don't mean anything but that you are qualified to evaluate strength training for cyclists because you ran a 3:05 mary and read slowtwitch?

You were doing sort of okay until this part. While I'm not a fan of the overused terms "core strength" and "core training" what about it do you think is not beneficial? What muscles do you think are or are not involved in core strength? And what do you think acclimating is if not muscle adaptation?

The muscles that stabilize our trunk are very much involved in cycling and if they happen to be a limiting factor then working to improve that area is advisable.

If you believe so, please specify WHICH muscles in core strength are so crucial.

Abs? No. Those should be relaxed. If you're flexing your abs, wtf are you doing on the bike.

Back? Maybe slightly for climbing, but seriously, if you're strong enough to stand upright, you can do fine on a bike. Deadlifts will do NOTHING for you.

Chest? Ok, go do benchpresses and flyes till your chest is sore - won't make you any faster.

Erector paraspinal muscles? Again, if you can stand upright, you're strong enough. Making them stronger will NOT decrease soreness in your back on long rides. THrow any bodybuilder on a bike for 4 hours with no training, and they'll be hobbling even if they can deadlift 300 lbs.

Core = BS for cycling and even running unless you literally have never played any sports in many years, and thus ANYTHING you do will help.

Note that I am not saying core is useless for other activities and overall well being. For most sports (soccer, basketball, football, etc.), core strength is CRUCIAL. All that turning, cutting, twisting, that requires a lot of core endurance and power. It'll also help you in dailiy activities of living as we lift things and lift heavy objects all the time. However, on the bike, it's useless. Riding a LOT will give you all the core you need for bike training and then some. Alberto contador will get destroyed in P90x or crossfit or any other 'core' type workout by the average joe guy who goes several times per week to train moderately hard.

I'm actually a great example of this. I used to lift a ton of weights, and when in peak liting shape, have super solid core, very strong. It also coincides with my slowest cycling, because I'm not spending as much time on the bike and also adding muscle mass. I still lift because I enjoy it and it has other benefits, but I am under no illusion it's making me faster in swimming, biking, running. This has also been definitively proven by professional athletes in these fields - they do some lifting and core sometimes because they're maxxxing out the other training - but make no mistake, if they had to give up one thing, the core training would be first.

We've had a few runners join the team the last few years. They all do well, especially in road races. Most of us here will never be an elite athlete so I say cross train. However, 5-6 days on the bike AND a run is a lot. Maybe just substitute a ride day for another run day.

Good luck

Rob

thanks for the laugh.

how far and how hard are you going on your runs? maybe you're over-doing it and that's the issue. a light run, say 20 minutes at 9-10 minute pace perfect to get the blood flowing just enough and prime for a hard effort on the bike the next day.

I love to cross train my running with cycling 2x/wk and pilates 3x/wk.

So what you're saying is that the hips and legs are isolated in cycling. That erectors and to some extent the obliques are not engaged for leverage and stabilization. I have never heard pectorals included in "core". Very strong abs may not be necessary for cycling but since the erectors are used it is better to have balance.

Then you veered back into the argument that lifting and/or cross-training do not make for better cycling. That was never my point. Lifting isn't the only way to work muscle groups.

Athletes train to improve and will give up what doesn't produce results. If core work is beneficial to them they will do it.

running is not helping your cycling.

Which is why cyclists and runner do minimal core work, and only after they are maxxing out their cycling-specific or run-specific (for running) training.

You do NOT see top guys going out endorsing serious x-training, even endurance-type x-training as a major part of their training that's taking an hour or more per day. You pretty much proved my point for me.

No one in here is a top guy. I doubt anyone in here has reached the limits of what their body can do training wise. There are many that maximize what their lives and other obligations allow. This is the very group that could gain from supplemental exercise if they (we) have to maintain work, life, and fitness balance. Something you do yourself.

Duh. I was referring to elites and pros, who clearly don't hang out here. NONE of them spend 4-5 hrs per week, if even 1 hr per week x-training. This holds true for runners, swimmers, cyclists and even triathletes, who do max 1-2 hrs of x-training per week.

Because you aren't maxxing out your training, it lends all the more reason to NOT x-train if you want to get faster on the bike. The top guys throw some x-training in often because they'd be literally overtrained if they kept hammering it on the bike for more hours, so the mixup actually helps the rest some.

For everyone on BF, it's all about the bike to get faster on the bike. Throw that ridiculous x-training and weightlifting concept out the window once and for all.